Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the process we have started is a Joint Committee looking at the relationship between the Lords and the Commons. There will be a free vote in both Houses on composition of the Lords. We accept completely that if there is reform in the Lords, inevitably that will have an effect on the Commons. We think that this is the right approach.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have here a long list in relation to the various benefits. For income support, the take-up is between 90 and 97 per cent; for the minimum income guarantee, it is between 73 to 75 per cent; and for pension credit, it is between 68 to 76 per cent These are all by expenditure. I can let the noble Earl have a full list. Clearly the issue of take-up is very important. There are many reasons why benefits are not all taken up. It is partly because for individual claimants the amount from some benefits would be very small indeed. I accept that complexity is one of the reasons. The department has a lot of programmes in place—advertising, the issuing of leaflets and the use CABx and other avenues—to encourage people to make claims. I certainly accept that making the benefits system easier to use and understand is one of the ways in which we need to go forward.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my understanding is that £119 billion is paid out overall in benefits and allowances in more than 30 different allowances and benefits to around 20 million customers. The operation is very big and very complicated. On the proposed employment and support allowance, we have published a Green Paper setting out our broad proposals and I hope that within the next few weeks we will be able to announce our conclusions in this area. We have signalled that we want to move to a simplified and integrated benefits structure for all working-age benefits; when we publish the results from the Green Paper, we will be saying more about that.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Citizenship Foundation. On what the Minister said earlier when he described a patchy implementation of the Government's citizenship education, do the Government have any plans for any form of accreditation of citizenship, given that without some form of accreditation many schools will give it a low priority?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat in the form of a Statement the response made to an Urgent Question in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State, Ian Pearson.
	"The UK has seen below average rainfall for 19 months. In particular, the south-east has been much drier than during the notable drought of 1974-76. The Environment Agency believes that the drought in the south-east has the potential to be the worst for 100 years.
	"Water planning is on the basis that each water company has a water resource plan looking ahead 25 years. Water companies also have a drought plan setting out how they will continue to meet their duties during a water shortage.
	"I recognise the public concern over leakage rates. Ofwat, the economic regulator, sets targets for leakage and, over the past 10 years, leakage rates have reduced by 30 per cent However, there is more to be done, particularly by some companies. Since privatisation, water companies have invested £55 billion in water and sewerage assets and more than £3.5 billion in 2004–05 alone.
	"As the House will be aware, water companies in the south-east have introduced hosepipe and sprinkler bans to manage the drought situation. The recent decision to approve the Sutton and East Surrey drought order application is the next step beyond a hosepipe ban. I am currently considering the independent inspector's reports following the hearings on the drought order applications made by Southern and Mid-Kent Water".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Answer to the urgent Question tabled by my honourable friend in another place. I have several questions for the Minister.
	We have debated in this House, on 30 March, yesterday and on another occasion, the whole question of water and water supply. I do not blame the Government for the lack of rain, but one of the results of this shortage is that the management of our supplies needs looking at. One possibility is the concept of imposing water meters in households. I understand that Ken Livingstone said the other day that in London it is inevitable. If we move to meterage, what precautions will the Government or water companies take to protect the most vulnerable people, who, on the whole, tend to use more water than smaller households?
	Thames Water has had an appalling water loss record in recent years. I understand it has missed its target for the past five years. Does the Minister consider that there is enough power within the regulatory authority to get the company to address this situation?
	Much of the water is wasted through leakages. I have raised the whole question of investment and pipe replacement before in this House. I understand that a cap has been imposed upon companies. Will the Government review that, and what is the position?
	Next I turn to the question of new house build, particularly in the south-east and East Anglia. We have been assured from time to time that water provision would be perfectly adequate for these new builds, but I understand that the water companies were unfortunately not included in the discussions when the ODPM was considering the projects. Will the Minister confirm that, and tell us what the Government are doing now to put that right?
	Another question that was raised the other night when we were debating water was the number of applications that are coming in for individual abstraction licences. I am sure the Minister will comment on that, because obviously one man's abstraction reduces the supply of water further along the line.
	The Bewl reservoir is at an all-time low. How many reservoirs are less than half full, and how many have closed over the past 15 years?
	Returning to the house building programme, in which the water companies are supposed to have 25-year plans to cover their needs, is the Minister satisfied that the plans that were in existence are adequate under the circumstances, and, if not, what are the Government doing to persuade the water companies to reconsider this issue?
	Human health and safety is the first call on our water supplies, and the household accounts for 45 per cent The restrictions being put in place will have an impact on businesses, tourism and agriculture. What priorities will be given to each of these sectors, and how will they be resolved? Will that be left to the water companies, or will it be dealt with by the Environment Agency?
	It is difficult to get a balance between raising awareness of the difficulties placed on the water companies and our needs as individuals without scaremongering, but I am very concerned about the long-term planning for good household provision of water and for business requirements, particularly in view of the growth in building in the south and south-east.
	As we know, there is plenty of water in Wales and the north and west of the country. Have the Government given any further consideration to having a national water grid? I know there are disadvantages to that, but we should not just dismiss it. We should actively consider it again.
	Those are a very few questions for the Minister. I should be grateful for his response to them. It is a fine balance to know how much we need to conserve and preserve. It could rain tomorrow, but unfortunately our underground water supplies are very sparse and even if we have many downpours it will take some time for them to be replenished. I again thank the Minister for repeating the Statement.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I concur that the Government are not to blame for the lack of rain. However, if they fail to take stronger measures in the face of the fact that climate change will undoubtedly make rainfall less predictable—that is what the scientists are telling us—and that droughts are more likely, they will, of course, be to blame. My questions relate to the measures that they could take.
	First, the Minister said in the Statement that leakage rates had been reduced by 30 per cent in 10 years, but that is only 3 per cent a year. Are there additional mechanisms that the Government can use? The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, was good enough to send a further written reply to the debate that I initiated on 9 May, to which she replied, in which she stated that in between the price reviews there were mechanisms for dealing with changes. Should those mechanisms now be brought in?
	Secondly, I refer to one of the first Written Answers that the Minister was good enough to provide for me when he took up his current position at Defra. I asked the Government:
	"Whether they have considered a national roll-out of water metering in the light of the water shortage".
	The Minister replied:
	"The Government recognise that metering is an effective method of charging customers according to consumption and that, with appropriate protection for vulnerable households, it represents a generally fair means of charging".—[Official Report, 15/5/06; col. WA15-16.]
	Given that that is the Government's attitude, why are they not thinking of rolling out a universal metering system? According to all estimates at least 10 per cent of water consumption could be saved?
	Further, does the Minister think that there is sufficient help for consumers in labelling of appliances so that they are not only targeted by the clever marketing of, for example power showers, but are aware of how much extra water they would use? That would apply to all sorts of white goods such as washing machines and dishwashers.
	Finally, I refer again to a more detailed Written Answer that I was given following my debate on 9 May in which the Government said that there were controls to prevent the waste, misuse and undue consumption of water in domestic and commercial premises. Irrespective of those people who are metered, I wonder exactly what is meant by those controls. In addition to the hose pipe ban and the drought order such controls should now surely be brought in.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is true that Thames Water has a bad record on leakage compared with other water companies. I do not believe that there is any doubt about that. However, it has undertaken additional spending in 2003–04 and has spent an extra £200 million out of its profits in that period because Ofwat would not allow the entire amount to be passed on to customers' bills, which it was planning to do. In some ways that was effectively a financial penalty, but it gets the work done. Thames Water failed its overall 2004–05 leakage target by 10 megalitres a day—1.1 per cent To that extent, on leakages Thames Water is a failed company. I do not know any more about the detail. I certainly draw the attention of the House to Ofwat and what has been said. For the first time since 1999–2000, in the past year, Thames Water has reduced its overall leakage. The company may have failed in the past, but slowly it is starting to put things right.

Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords. I covered that, because it was raised in the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the extra homes which are rightly needed. People ought to have a choice over where they can affordably live. Too many people are being driven away from where they have lived and been brought up; that is not right. We therefore need more homes built at a higher density. The fact of the matter is that modern homes are much more water efficient than the rest of the 25 million dwellings in this country. They use less water per head, because of how they are built and their installation. Those factors were fully taken on board.
	The other question was about the water companies. The water companies and the Environment Agency were fully involved in the production of the communities plan. I am not blaming people in the south-east; it just happens to be where there is currently less water where water is drawn from. There is no blame attached to people for this, we just have to take account of it. But there is a large population in the south-east, and the water resources are not necessarily in the same place as the people.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, when the Minister was explaining to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the difficulties of transporting water to people, it occurred to me that perhaps we should resort to transportation of people to water. Does the Minister agree that, while people have a right to houses in villages where they have lived for generations, there has also been an enormous influx of people to the south-east from the north of England and Scotland? Can some long-term planning not be done to encourage these people to go back to their roots, providing jobs where their roots are instead of expecting the south-east to cope with the indigenous as well as additional population?
	When I was a schoolgirl in the 1950s out in Kenya, I learned that the eastern coast of England was much drier than the western side.

Lord Methuen: My Lords, is the Minister aware of a 1930s scheme called the grand contour canal, which I think was at the 600-foot contour? It was devised to take water all around England, providing both water distribution and navigation—or recreation, in this day and age. It would have covered the entire country to bring water from areas which had it to those that had not.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not aware of that proposal at the 600-foot level. I do not know offhand where we are—I imagine we are below 600 feet here. Canals are fine. They are there as a resource, and may be necessary for transport and moving water. I do not know, but I will make it my business to find out about that plan.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, everybody has ideas for fixing the problem. They are all fixable, but how much will that cost? To return to the issue of metering, is it not in the Government's interest to point out that everybody can have a meter if they want to and that the water companies supply them for free? There should be an obligation on all of us to try to save water, and the one way of doing so is to find out how much one is using.
	Secondly, there is a huge amount of ignorance in the other place, if I may say so, where a question was recently asked about why on earth the water companies dig up the sides of the street rather than putting the mains down the centre of the road. They really do not understand. People complain whenever they see leaks and the water companies get an enormous amount of flak about it. They try to do the work at night but are not allowed to because of the noise of drilling. They try to do the work during the day and get the Evening Standard and everyone else coming down on them like a tonne of bricks.
	We have to expect there to be a leakage problem. A lot of our pipes are Victorian. Some of the pipes that were replaced in the 1960s were made of stuff which has now disintegrated. It is to be hoped they now have the answer to that, but it is a national problem, particularly down in the south-east. We have to get it right instead of point-scoring on desalination plants, where somebody says, "You can't do that because of the energy costs of desalination". Metering is really the answer. The Government should take the line—I hope the Minister agrees with me—of saying to people, "You can have meters, so have them".

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not know what instructions have yet been given for standpipes. Currently, no companies have approached Defra to discuss the need for standpipes under the emergency drought order. Obviously, it is not a question of simply doing it without any discussion. It would not be the first time this has happened. My noble asked about getting water from the standpipe to vulnerable people. That must be dealt with as a priority, as indeed I am sure it was the last time standpipes were used.
	My noble friend's final question, regarding what the companies do after the effect of the drought to ensure that the burden is not put back on the customer and that they pay their fair share, is very valid. I shall make sure it is answered, along with the other questions. Although I cannot answer the question about reservoirs in a letter to noble Lords—I will write to the noble Baroness—I will make sure it is answered in the form of a Statement or something that we can put in the Library, because obviously this is a matter of general interest.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving Amendment No. 80, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 81, 83 and 90 standing in my name. I note that Amendment No. 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is also in the group; it looks as though the noble Lord, Lord Addington, may speak to it. I will not comment at this stage on Amendment No. 88; at first blush it looks as though it may be a matter that I had intended to cover by Amendment No. 89, which is separate. I will wait with bated breath to hear what issue the noble Lord, Lord Addington, may propose.
	We ended our debates on the first day in Committee some three weeks ago by launching into the part of the Bill that sets out how alcohol disorder zones will be set up. Local authorities are being given a new power to designate a locality as an alcohol disorder zone where there is a perceived problem of alcohol-related disorder or a nuisance. Local authorities will have power to impose extra charges on those who hold licences to sell alcohol by retail and on those who hold a club premises licence where alcohol is sold to members and their guests. Charges would be imposed if licensed premises and clubs did not implement an action plan designed to address the problem.
	In our previous debates, we heard that there is considerable concern among those who hold licences that they may be unfairly penalised. So much is left to regulation that it is uncertain which retailers will be subject to charges. Clause 13 gives local authorities the power to designate a locality within its area as an alcohol disorder zone, if the conditions set out in Clause 3(1) are met. If the local authority decides that it will designate an area, Clause 13(2) states that it must publish a notice setting out its proposals and invite representations to be made within 28 days about both the proposal itself and what might be included in the action plan to tackle the perceived problem.
	Amendment No. 80 would impose an obligation on the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the contents of any proposals to designate a locality. Amendment No. 90 is the stick that goes with that, because it would ensure that the provisions of Clause 13 could not come into force unless and until guidance and regulations had been published. We would expect such guidance or regulations to include a requirement that those businesses that would have to pay any charges imposed by an alcohol disorder zone be notified individually.
	Last October, the Government indicated in another place that such guidance would indeed be forthcoming. We have still not had sight of it. Will the Minister today tell the Committee when the regulations and guidance will be produced? In particular, can he assure us that the House will be able to consider a draft of the guidance before Report?
	Amendment No. 83 would require the Secretary of State to specify a maximum number of days within which a draft action plan should be published. The purpose of that amendment is to ensure that all parties are aware of the timeframe within which an action plan should be produced. It would also ensure that local authorities do not delay the drafting of any action plan. It would thus be a more efficient way to approach the designation process.
	Although I recognise that this is a relatively minor point of detail, it seems reasonable to suggest a timeframe to the local authority, as that will ensure that things do not drift. If there is an alcohol disorder problem that needs to be addressed, it is surely preferable that those who are responsible know what they have to do about it sooner rather than later. As we shall discuss under a later amendment, they should then be allowed proper time to put that action plan into effect. I beg to move.

Lord Addington: I shall briefly make a few comments on Amendment No. 88. The basic idea behind it is to have an implementation period for any remedial action—an eight-week period. Either you let the whole thing happen and allow people to see if it works, or you do not. That is the thinking behind the amendment. Either you have a chance to implement it, or you do not; it works or it does not. That is a brief outline behind the thinking behind the amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Obviously I am speaking rather too quickly because I hope that I said that the amendment had been "suggested" by the wine trade rather than sponsored by it. I do not belong to a trade union, although of course I recognise the valuable work that many of them do, so I do not accept amendments that are sponsored by any particular group.
	As I said, this is a probing amendment. In recounting how the process is intended to develop, the Minister said that there would be no need for a review because, if nothing is happening and does not need to happen, so that designation is not necessary, why go through all the work of undertaking a review? I have no problem with that. If the Government are saying that one does not have to go straight to designation at some stage when there has been a void in-between, that is not the difficulty. My concern, from a different point of view, is that the licensed trade could be undertaking a lot of constructive activity to resolve problems and to meet the action plan but that activity might not be recognised. So I was interested in the response of the noble Lord and I shall look at it again carefully because he has in fact made an important point that I have not discussed with outside organisations; I shall certainly do so now. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving Amendment No. 85, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 95. These amendments probe the extent to which information about alcohol disorder zones—I beg the pardon of the House. In trying to be quick, I have missed out the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 84. I am grateful to the Deputy Chairman for guiding me back to the right amendment. Perhaps the House would have been grateful if I had missed out a grouping, that of Amendment No. 84; certainly the Bill team look as if they might have been.
	We have already looked at the issue of when the action plan is to be published, but I turn now to the purpose of the consultation phase. I have teased out separate groups to address the issue of consultation because the amendments refer to different questions and different groups of people as they are affected.
	Clause 13(3) states that the notice setting out the proposal to designate a locality must require representations to be made within 28 days after the publication of the notice. The problem is that nothing in Clause 13 states that those representations must then be taken into account. It is a case of, "Tell us what you want, but we will not bother to do anything about it". I am sure the Minister will say, "Gosh, we would not dream of that happening; that could not possibly be the outcome"—but it seems an odd way of drafting the legislation.
	I recall that some while back, when we were dealing with the Courts Act 2003, we made points on the same basis. The Government looked favourably on us and found a form of words to reassure those who were going to be consulted that their representations would be taken into account. I am not saying that my amendment is beautifully drafted but I hope that it proposes a way forward.
	The amendment would make it a requirement that a local authority must listen to and take account of the views of those who may have to pay these extra charges after an alcohol disorder zone is designated. It is not a particularly onerous duty but it could give some comfort to the licensed trade that whatever representations it makes will not be in vain. It would not, of course, require the local authority to act upon any representations so made. The representations could relate to the size of the alcohol disorder zone or they could suggest improvements or alterations to any draft action plan. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We certainly agree with the principle of this amendment, but I am sure that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that we do not think that it is essential to have it on the face of the Bill. Local government, like central government, already recognises the need to ensure that information is published in a way that recognises the needs of those members of the community with disabilities. The noble Baroness is right to make the connection with the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 because, from December this year, it will amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to place a general duty on all public sector authorities to promote disability equality. That will, among other things, build on measures already taken by placing a general duty on public authorities to mainstream disability equality into the way in which they carry out their functions.
	Our guidance will of course need to take account of this and advise local authorities positively to consider the needs of all stakeholders—to use the dreaded word—when publishing any of the materials associated with the ADZ process. The noble Baroness gave some examples of different formats. We would expect that those would be exactly the sorts of formats to be used.
	It is vital that all of the information is communicated in such a way that all interested parties have access to the information. We are of the same mind on that.
	Amendment No. 95 is much the same. Providing information in an accessible format is crucial. We know that public bodies already provide accessibility sections on their websites. For example, even the Home Office's website, like other organisations, provides options for viewing pages in different typefaces. Again, our guidance will need to take account of accessibility, particularly in the light of the new statutory duties, which we expect to have a real effect. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is another debate about process, but an important one. Amendment No. 89 covers implementation of the action plan and would provide that a local authority could not designate an alcohol disorder zone if the whole action plan is, or the majority of its steps are, being implemented. As we have made fairly plain from the start, the action plan is the real prize here and the core of what we are trying to achieve. I cannot see that there would be case in which a local authority would wish to move to designate an ADZ when all the steps in the action plan were in the process of being carried out.
	What about when the majority of steps in the action plan were being put into effect? I can see that there may be some cases in which the local authority may decide that, if this was the case, designation was unnecessary. On the other hand, what if the remaining steps were absolutely critical? In such circumstances, the local authority might well decide, perhaps reluctantly, to move to designation.
	We believe that the Bill is drafted to provide a robust and flexible framework within which those affected can work. When it is clear that designation is not appropriate, when steps are being taken to implement the action plan, and there is sufficient flexibility to manage situations where the action plan falls short on some of the steps, I do not think that we want to tie local authorities' hands in these cases. So the spirit of what the noble Baroness proposes is already there in the Bill's drafting, and the flexibility is there to proceed as she suggests. Like her, we do not want to see businesses being overburdened with unnecessary costs, because things are moving along as we want them to. That goes back to a point that I have made on several occasions before that ADZs are a last resort and that we hope that before we get to that point local authorities can work with the police and those businesses involved to secure the outcome that they all want to mitigate or deal with the problem.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for the way he has tried to set out the answer to show that the Government expect local authorities to behave in the way I want. The trouble is that that is not what the Bill allows local authorities to do.
	The amendment is all about process—he is quite correct about that—but it is important. He says that he cannot see that there would be a case where the local authority would go ahead if all the action plan was being put into effect. I agree that it would be extraordinary—I am trying to use parliamentary language—if it did go ahead with the plan in those circumstances. He also says that the Bill allows the authority to do it. It can just finish and say "Right, that's it. We'll designate".
	The Minister then asks: what if most of the action plan is being implemented, but the parts that are not are the essential parts—that is, those that would sign, seal and deliver the whole action plan? I rather suspect that this is exactly what will have to happen. If one has a period of eight weeks during which an action plan is to be put into effect, it will take some time to hit the ground running to be able to get the initial stages set up. I suspect a lot of the essential work will be crammed into the latter part of the period of the action plan. If, therefore, a local authority decided at any time, say half-way through, that it really wanted to go ahead and designate, it might in fact be pre-empting the ability of traders to put into effect the essential steps. They would not have had the chance to do so in the first part.
	I know the Minister says that the spirit is there in the Bill. I agree with him 100 per cent when he says that designation of alcohol disorder zones is the last resort, but that is not what this specific part of the Bill says. It does not have that rigour. What he has said is right, but that is not what the Bill says. The licensed trade feels strongly about this, so I do not think the Minister will be too surprised if on this particular issue I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: This is another amendment about process. It is a minor probing amendment, which will be a relief to the Minister. Clause 14 (1) states:
	"An order designating an alcohol disorder zone must identify the locality . . . either by name or . . . by describing its boundaries".
	In default of there being guidance or regulations on all the matters before us, I have tabled the amendment to seek guidance from the Government as to how they expect that description to be made.
	The Minister will be aware that there is great concern in some areas. If an ADZ were designated by a geographical name—for example, if my area was designated as "Goldsworth Park"—would that not give all the people who lived and worked in that area a bad reputation? If the local authority seeks to be transparent about describing an area, and if businesses in that area qualify to pay the extra charge, it will be clear to everyone that the area is an alcohol disorder zone. My concern is that, in ensuring that the local authority has that clarity and transparency, one might also have a bad effect on property prices and businesses in the area. If one wanted to invite someone out for a pleasant evening—perhaps an alcohol-free evening—on a Saturday, one might phone up one's friend and say, "How about coming with me to the latest alcohol disorder zone?", and the respondent might well tell you where to go—but not to the alcohol disorder zone. People have a real concern that there could be a depression in property prices due to the way in which these places are described.
	There is also the problem of how one makes the zone clear by description. Do there have to be grid references on the ordnance survey map? Does one describe a zone by defining the boundary roads around that area? So I have tabled a probing amendment to ask how the Government are going to give advice on that and also how the local authority would be expected to give a clear indication, as you approached an alcohol disorder zone, that you were entering it. Or will there be no notices? After all, we have notices around Greater London from that personage, the Mayor of London, saying that you are about to enter the congestion charge zone. Instead of having "CCs" around, are we going to have "ADZs"? How will people know, or is that fanciful? Will it simply be the case that businesses in the area will be clearly told, "This is the area covered by an ADZ. You're going to have to pay up", and no one else will be told specifically how the area is defined? I beg to move.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: The amendments in this group deal with the variation of the locality and with the termination of an alcohol disorder zone. The purpose of Amendment No. 92 is to prevent a local authority being able to vary the extent of the locality to which an ADZ is attached by making a replacement order without proper consultation. A local authority should not be able to designate, for example, all the licensed premises within a town or within a ward—to use the area referred to by the Minister—without going through the full procedure. This is where the matter ties in with Amendment No. 94. When the clause refers in subsection (6) to new procedures being brought in by regulations it suggests that there would be a fast-track way of extending a locality or of varying a locality without the necessary consultation. If an authority does that, it should go through the full procedure of preparing an action plan again and giving the newly-affected licensees an opportunity to eradicate any nuisance in the newly-defined area by the measures that are agreed. The full scale of charges should not be implemented until those procedures have been carried out.
	The first part of Amendment No. 93—new subsection (5A)—puts what is in effect a sunset clause on ADZs so that they should not be allowed to roll on indefinitely but should have a set lifespan. The problem envisaged with alcohol disorder zones is that to a local authority they could appear to be a very nice way of raising money without ever interfering with the designation; a local authority could continue to collect money from the licensed premises for the policing of the town and so on. We believe that that is undesirable and that a term should be put into the legislation.
	New subsection (5B) ensures that if a local authority wants the alcohol disorder zone to continue, it should go through the procedures of publication, consideration of representations and preparation of a fresh action plan again. After all, if there has been an action plan, and it has been partly implemented—I refer to the debate we had a moment ago—then the local authority should take a fresh look at the situation and put forward proper proposals. That is the reason for these probing amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for their comments on these amendments. I will run through them in turn.
	Amendment No. 92 seeks to remove from local authorities the power to propose a variation to the geographical area covered by an ADZ, and to remove the power to make a new designation order to this effect, revoking the previous one. We want local authorities and the police to be obliged to think carefully before setting up an ADZ. I am sure that we all agree that that must be a first principle. That thorough consideration must include what the key geographical area should be. Noble Lords will have noted that I was careful to say that we expected the ADZs to be tightly drawn. That is obviously to be the case, but there is no point in setting up an ADZ simply to shift the problem half a mile down the road.
	We would expect most ADZs to stay focused on the same area from beginning to end. However, we must allow for the circumstance of some unforeseen displacement. One must be realistic about that. Some other factor, perhaps as simple as a change in the management of several pubs in the same street just outside the zone, could end up being just as much of a problem as their neighbours, perhaps as little as 100 or 200 yards away.
	The question of where to draw the boundary is always going to be difficult. Obviously, consultation will be important, but we must retain the power to vary ADZs because to do otherwise would have a serious limiting effect on local authorities and their ability to use ADZs effectively as part of a broader package of weapons for reducing alcohol-fuelled disorder. The factors are the need for flexibility, perhaps taking account of changes in management and, perhaps, some spin-off effect from displacement—which one can fairly accept might be an outcome.
	Amendment No. 93, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, clearly explained, would terminate an ADZ a year after compulsory charging began. It would require the local authority and the police—not, I noted, the local chief officer of police—to go back to square one if they believed that the ADZ should continue. I can understand why the noble Lord has tabled the amendment, and agree that a year is quite a long time. In many cases, ADZs may well be lifted in a shorter time frame. The problem may well abate; the action may well have been effective; it may have done the job it was supposed to, and it would be right to bring it to a close. It would be surprising if more than a handful of ADZs lasted longer than a year, because that would suggest a somewhat larger, more persistent, problem.
	There may, however, be some intractable areas where that is the case, where businesses are recalcitrant and even the stimulation of an ADZ is not having the desired impact. I would have thought that, if the scheme works as we see it working, that should not be a frequent occurrence, but there will be occasions when it is. For that reason I want to resist including a sunset clause of a year, which obliges going back to square one.
	Amendment No. 94 would remove the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out additional procedures to be followed relating to designating an area as an ADZ or revoking that order, presumably to give local authorities and the police less room for manoeuvre. We are as confident as we can be in advance of implementation that the procedures for designating an area as an ADZ and for revoking that designation are right. We will supplement those provisions with guidance on a range of the more detailed points. But however well prepared we are now, designations are bound to raise new issues over time. Some of them will be suitable for addressing in the guidance, but others should no doubt have the force of statute behind them. It is for those reasons that I resist the amendments, though I understand why the noble Lord wants to put a full stop on the operation of an ADZ, and why he wants to ensure that variations to ADZs are constrained. I hope that, having heard my remarks, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendments.

Lord Pendry: Amendment No. 106, which stands in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran, Lord Addington and Lord Hoyle, seeks to address an anomaly inadvertently created by the Private Security Industry Act 2001, which has led to the unnecessary and burdensome regulation of stewards at sports grounds by the Security Industry Authority. Before I cover much of this in detail, I declare an interest by reminding the Chamber that I am chairman of the All-Party Sports Group as well as president of the Football Foundation, having served as chairman of that body and its predecessor, the Football Trust.
	The Minister will recall that I expressed these concerns briefly on Second Reading, as did other noble Lords—particularly the noble Lords Lord Glentoran and Lord Addington. But it is worth reminding the Chamber that the Private Security Industry Act 2001 was intended to raise security standards on licensed premises and to reduce criminality in the security sector. In effect, it was intended to deal with bouncers and wheel-clampers. It is worth noting that the Government have intended to regulate the private security industry since March 1999, and at no stage since then—the White Paper, the passing of the Bill and the establishment of the Security Industry Authority—has there been any consultation on matters with any English sporting authority.
	Under the 2001 Act, the SIA is required to communicate with and to consult key stakeholders. I could go through a whole list of those who were consulted, but I will not. In all, 51 organisations were consulted. Yet again, however, not one organisation that represents any sporting body was consulted. So it is unsurprising that sporting bodies are amazed that the Act was drafted in such a way that it inadvertently caught sports stewards within its remit. Indeed, it is clear that not only sport was surprised by the sudden appearance of the SIA on its territory. By happy chance of fate, the Minister who took the original Act through this House is now once again at the Dispatch Box for this Bill. He will recall that he told this House during the passage of that Bill that the Private Security Industry Act 2001 would not apply to in-house sports stewards. More recently, Paul Goggins, the then Home Office Minister in charge of this legislation in the other place, told a sporting audience at the CCPR last October that it was not envisaged that the Act would apply to sport. We now know that it does. He said that we needed to find a way of dealing with it. At the same meeting he promised to consider the possibility of amending primary legislation to correct this anomaly. Today, this Chamber has that chance.
	Proportionality is key to the debate. There is no evidence of criminality or poor standards in the stewarding of security at sporting events. Yet the cost of licensing them under the SIA is prohibitively high. For many stewards involved in quite standard activity, the requisite qualifications would cost several hundred pounds and require hours to be devoted to training time. The Better Regulation Task Force has reviewed the matter and concluded that sport should not be regulated in this way. Clearly, the financial and administrative costs of licensing enough stewards to work at events held at venues such as Twickenham, Lord's and Wimbledon championships would be huge. And we are not talking simply about the loss of financial revenue. As well as threatening to increase costs for sports events, it also threatens to divert resources away from investing in effective stewarding to licensing costs and training procedures that are not appropriate. It would reduce the levels of protection at our sports grounds, where those who run them are deservedly proud of their worldwide claim on safety standards.
	This amendment, which I am pleased has received widespread support across all sides of the Chamber, is intended to establish a point of principle; namely, that sports grounds already regulated through a safety certificate mechanism overseen by local authorities and the police should be exempt from the SIA licensing. That would give sport the same exclusion already applied to other sectors, such as cinemas and theatres. There is no reduction in standards of public safety as those safety licensing requirements would still apply.
	It was perhaps no coincidence that on the same day that I raised the issue at Second Reading, the Home Office published a consultation document on the subject. Since then there have been meetings between the Home Office, the SIA and some of the major sporting governing bodies, including Rugby Union, Rugby League, tennis and cricket. I am very encouraged to have received feedback, as no doubt have many of my colleagues, from these meetings. I am told that they have been very constructive. The Home Office is now actively looking at bringing forward measures that would have exactly the same effect as the spirit of this amendment. This would include making sure that all sports stadia covered not only by the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 but also by the 1987 fire safety certificates will be excluded from the SIA licensing.
	I look forward to the Minister's reply. It is important that the Minister makes a clear indication of the timetable he proposes in order to address this issue. I am told that the consultation is due to end on 15 June. It would reassure me, and my noble friends who support this amendment, if this Chamber is given assurance from him that Report stage will be scheduled after that date, so that we have time to consider the best way forward. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran: I support the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, on this amendment. I thank the Minister and his colleagues for the consultations and time that we have spent debating this outside your Lordships' House. We have had meetings with not only the Home Office but also with the Minister of Sport and others. I am comfortable that the Government are moving to correct what I am sure was an unintended error leading to unintended consequences, which has brought us to where we are.
	My major concerns are twofold. First, there are a lot of sporting events being stewarded without licences, which are therefore technically in breach of the law. I understand that private agreements have been reached between police forces, or whichever are the necessary authorities, and these organisations. But that is not a satisfactory state of affairs.
	The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, has made most of the key points. But the second point that I would like to enforce is that it is clearly a case of over-regulation, which I know was unintended—at least I believe that it was unintended. I hope that at Report stage, the Minister will reassure us of that by bringing forward his own amendment. If the Government do not see their way to doing that, life will be very difficult in the sporting world. In part, that will be because of the bureaucracy that this brings, but much more so because of the cost that it will bring. There is not nearly enough money in British sport to do the things that we want for training athletes, footballers and cricketers at the lower echelons. Sure, there is tons of money in professional football—far too much in my opinion. If this law stands unchanged, it will put an unnecessary drain on both the human and financial resources of sports clubs and sports men and women right across the kingdom. I support the amendment.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I rise only briefly because most of the points have been made. I declare an interest as chairman of the Warrington Wolves Rugby League Club, but it is not only rugby league clubs that have approached me about this. I have also heard from rugby union representatives, the Lawn Tennis Association and the ECB. It is the cost of the provision that has set alarm bells ringing in all of these sports bodies if it goes ahead. As has been explained, it is absolutely unnecessary. Surely what applies to security guards and nightclub bouncers does not need to apply to well regulated sports and sports clubs. You need only look at what has been happening in all the sports I have mentioned. There is no violence and no crowd trouble because these events are well stewarded. It is therefore ridiculous that we find ourselves in this position. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Pendry has explained in his usual way what Ministers will have to do to try and get themselves out of the mess they have created, because this is an anomaly which should not be in the Bill.
	The timetable is important since we are at Report stage. Whatever the outcome of the deliberations—I hope they will be positive and that we will be given a suitable amendment to get rid of this provision—we want the opportunity, in not pressing the amendment today, to take a different attitude if the proposal is not satisfactory. I am quite certain and hopeful that it will be satisfactory, but our fate lies in the hands of the Minister and his colleagues.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I, too, rise briefly to support my noble friend and to apologise to him for missing the opening sentences of his speech. I was at another meeting elsewhere in the building. This is clearly an unsatisfactory situation that has come about largely by accident. If an amendment like this one were to be drafted and incorporated into the Bill at a later stage, it would not lead in any sense to a diminution of safety standards at our major stadiums. At this point I should declare an interest as vice-chairman of the Cardiff Millennium Stadium. We certainly would not even contemplate using an amendment to the Private Security Industry Act 2001 as an excuse for reducing our stewarding and safety precautions at the stadium. The same goes for the Warrington rugby league club and, indeed, for all football clubs covered by the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975.
	What we are talking about is a large number of voluntary sports organisations who will find themselves bearing a financial burden which it was never intended should be placed on them. I hope very much that, when he replies, my noble friend is able to give us some comfort by saying that the Government are aware of this and intend to do something about it at a later stage of the Bill.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, and my noble friend Lord Glentoran for raising this issue, and I know that very constructive talks have been going on with the Government. We all agree that this is an unintentional outcome, and I agree in particular with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester: the change we seek to achieve will not reduce public safety. That, I am sure, underpins everything that I hope will be agreed between the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, my noble friend and the Government.
	It has been said that there have been private agreements between police forces and sports authorities. At the moment people are operating, in a sense, in contravention of the law by not having to pay the extra sum but still trying to ensure appropriate levels of safety. That is something which cannot continue; the position has to be regularised. Indeed, I was interested to note that the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, specifically asked for assurances that stadia would be excluded, that they would not have to be caught within these provisions.
	I do not think I have yet heard a noble Lord refer to the position being faced by the golfing organisations. I will do so because I have a personal interest in golf and I have had contact with those who steward the major events of the European tour and the PGA in this country. I know that they have been in negotiations with the SIA with regard to how they should proceed. They have been taking every responsible step they can to ensure that there is no physical contact between the stewards who generally marshal the various holes in a golf competition and the public. They have been training their stewards more than normally is the case. They say, for example, "Never use physical force when dealing with the crowd", but, of course, anyone like me who has attended golf tournaments and observed how golf should be played—unlike how I play it—realises that there are times when stewards have to be in physical contact because of the way one is marshalling the crowd.
	At the moment, responsible sports organisations which are trying not to have a financial burden imposed on them are properly training their staff and maintaining public safety—but they cannot be expected to continue in contravention of a law that was not intended to cover them. So, while supporting everything that has been said, perhaps I may make a special plea to the Minister to assure me that golfing competitions will likewise be covered by any agreement that may be achieved as a result of the ongoing negotiations.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, who, as we all know, has served the world of sport with great distinction, as have the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Addington. I shall try to be as helpful as I possibly can.
	This issue has followed me around for the past five or six years and, like everyone else, I shall be delighted if we can finally put it to bed and find a resolution to some of the difficulties that have arisen as a product of the unintended consequences of legislation which I thought at the time was extremely useful—although I was warned by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that one should be very careful in legislating that one does not create more of a problem than one is solving. This situation reminds of that occasion. His words have turned out to be rather wiser than I thought at the time, although I always listen very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, has to say.
	I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part in discussions outside of your Lordships' House because they have been very helpful indeed. No one is seeking to make a cheap, low-blow political point. I know that everyone is trying to be helpful and I am grateful to all those involved for working in a very constructive way. I want to restate that I am equally committed to working with the representatives of the organisations which have raised this issue in the way they have to find an agreeable way forward.
	To recap, noble Lords will recall from the Second Reading debate of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 that a measure was introduced to protect the public by reducing criminality and raising standards within the security industry, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, rightly made reference. There was a concern at that point about the activities of security staff on premises licensed to sell alcohol. Coming from Brighton, where we have a great many clubs, I had been frequently pressed over the preceding 20-odd years to get some effective government action because of some particular incidents of concern. This was a national issue.
	There is a need to protect the public, but that need has to be balanced against the need to avoid over-regulation in the industry. It is important that both effective and appropriate security measures are in place whenever they are needed and that the legislation is effective where it adds value. There have been some differences of opinion on whether or not the 2001 Act was intended to cover sports stewards.
	When I took the Private Security Industry Bill through the House, I said that it would not cover in-house football stewards and would cover those provided under contract. I also said I thought it was appropriate that one-off events such as pop concerts should be covered. It was also clear that in-house staff needed to be licensed when they were working on licensed premises. That latter point brings in security staff at sports grounds, which include licensed premises, and is the point, in essence, of the amendment.
	I want to move on from history and focus on where we are and where we want to end up. Not everyone who works as a sports or events steward needs to be licensed—far from it. Those who do not need to be licensed include volunteers, ticket collectors and all safety stewards who do not undertake any guarding responsibilities. Broadly speaking, in-house security staff do not need to be licensed unless they work in licensed premises or as wheel-clampers, or also provide security services under contract to someone else. Only those who undertake security activities or hold certain responsibilities within the company need licensing. At sports events where the risk of disorder or other relevant crime is low, I expect that there would be need for few security staff, with the great majority being safety stewards. Some events might not need any, but where they do, there is much to be said for common standards.
	The licensing of sports and events staff has, I readily acknowledge, been a contentious issue. Some of those from the sports and events industry who are directly involved have made clear their views that their stewards should not be required to be licensed. However, other groups have made equally clear their views that all people undertaking licensable activity should be licensed, and that to remove sports and events stewards from the remit of the Act would not be justifiable.
	For that reason, the Home Office has—conveniently, in a sense—recently issued a consultation document on how the Private Security Industry Act 2001 is applied to security staff at sports and other events. The deadline for responses, as has been astutely observed, is 16 June. The amendment goes to the heart of that consultation paper, and accepting it now would be premature. But it will, I hope, be helpful if I set out some considerations we will be likely to take into account once the consultation period is over.
	The Act allows for exclusion of premises from additional controls—that is, from the control that in licensed premises, in-house stewards must also be licensed. I am happy to confirm that exclusions can be achieved through secondary legislation. The Act does not set a framework within which applications for exclusion could be considered. There is an obvious need for such a framework to ensure clarity for those who may wish to apply and consistency in the Government's decision making. The establishment of such a framework might be one outcome of the consultation process, along with guidance on the sorts of evidence that would need to be provided by applicants. That evidence might include, for example, the benefits brought by a sports safety certificate. Other outcomes might include decisions on whether anything within the current licensing regime, as described in the Act or as operated in practice, needs clarifying or amending. Some stakeholders may have a variety of concerns, while others may find that greater understanding of what is required, or the provision of guidance or worked examples, will be sufficient to remove whatever concerns they have.
	I am hoping that we will get some valuable responses to the consultation paper, and today's debate suggests that we will. Other points will be raised that are not covered in the debate. The better the quality of the responses, the more likely we are to be able to reach speedy decisions that result in proper and professional security arrangements for the public, and regulation which bites where it needs to add value.
	My colleagues at the Home Office and the DCMS have had helpful meetings with my noble friend, and officials have had constructive discussions with a variety of sports bodies, including those covered by the amendment. These discussions will feed into the consultation process. The purpose behind the amendment is much better addressed in that context than in isolation, which would leave a lot of stakeholders' concerns unmet and make the licensing of security less coherent. However, I take the concerns behind it very seriously.
	Members of the Committee were pressing me for a timetable. I hope it will be possible for those responsible for ordering the business of this House to ensure that Report is not reached until after 16 June, when the consultation period closes. That would result in a debate on much clearer ground next time round. I hope that we will be able to look afresh at this at Report stage, taking carefully into account the comments that have been made. We will have the benefit of the consultation period behind us and the comments made by the organisations consulted to ensure that we achieve, in broad terms, the objective that noble Lords have raised in the debate.
	The noble Baroness asked a specific question about golf. I had not thought that golf stewarding would be a major issue when I came to this debate but, having watched a little golf myself, I can see that there could be problems. We will obviously consider the position of golf as we reconsider the other issues through the consultation process. The noble Baroness's comments were very helpful.
	This has been a very helpful and constructive debate. I am grateful for the spirit in which the amendment has been tabled. I hope that we can continue the process of consultation and that it is as constructive as it has been to date. I hope that we can reach an outcome that satisfies those in the various sports involved so that we can finally put this issue to rest and that the regulation of security at sports stadiums and venues is proportionate and effective and not as burdensome as some noble Lords have described or as has been made plain to us through representations. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will feel confident in withdrawing his amendment.

Lord Borrie: I am most grateful to the Minister for setting out at some length additional laws that have come into operation and for explaining his attitude to the amendment. I was a little confused whether his main argument was that the amendment was unnecessary or that it was too narrow because it dealt only with the matter of persistently selling alcohol to children. My noble friend Lord Brooke and I will look at Hansard and see whether there is anything further that we ought to do, but I am most grateful to the Minister for his explanation.

Lord Monson: I strongly support the amendment. As the Committee is unusually thin at the moment, perhaps I may add that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, to whom I was speaking earlier this afternoon, also strongly supports it. Unfortunately, he has another engagement at the moment and is unable to be here to give his vocal support, as he would like to have done.
	I can think of one reason and one reason only why the Government might be hesitant about accepting the amendment—fear of imagined public opinion and the opinion of a segment of the tabloid press. Those fears might have been justified, or partly justified, five or more years ago but I submit that that is no longer the case—in particular, with the Olympics looming ever closer. On the contrary, I suggest that the Government would be overwhelmingly applauded by the majority of the public and the media if they accepted this extremely modest amendment.

Earl Peel: I identify myself with my noble friend's amendment. I apologise to the Committee for intervening at a rather late stage in the Bill as I have not participated until now, but I was closely involved in the passage of the 1997 Act and its predecessor. I declare an interest as an ex-president of the Gun Trade Association. It appeared to me and indeed to many other noble Lords at the time that both the 1997 Act and its predecessor were an infringement on the liberties of law-abiding citizens who had enjoyed the sport unencumbered up until that point. Our justification for those comments has in fact proved to be correct, as it is pretty clear that gun-related crime has continued to rise since that time. The evidence demonstrated that legal guns played a very small part in any of the crimes committed activated at that time.
	We should also reflect—I say this with some reluctance but it is the truth—that if the police had utilised the powers that were available to them at that time, Hamilton would not have received a licence for such weapons. But, regrettably, political over-reaction from both parties—I entirely endorse the point that my noble friend made; this is not a party-political issue—took hold and the only people who really suffered were the law-abiding citizens and retailers whose sport and businesses were severely criticised. But that is in the past and I hope that lessons have been learnt.
	The amendment would, I believe, go some way to making amends for the great injustice that these two Acts have done towards those who wish to participate in target pistol shooting. As matters stand at the moment—this is another point raised by my noble friend—anyone within Great Britain who wishes to participate in such a sport must go abroad. I suggest that that is an absolute absurdity, and we now have an opportunity to make amends and address the problems. We are to be the hosts of the Olympic Games and the amendment gives us a chance to redress this difficulty. I really hope that the Government will look very carefully at my noble friend's amendment and come to some sensible agreement which will allow the shooters of this country to practise and participate in this country and, it is hoped, win medals in the way that they have done in the past and be a credit to Great Britain.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for the way in which he has dealt with the amendment. As all speakers have acknowledged, almost with one voice, it is a very sensitive issue. Nearly all speakers have taken us back to the events of 1996 and the Firearms (Amendment) Act of 1997 which followed. The issue was quite properly raised at Second Reading by a number of noble Lords. They pointed to the considerable success that our shooters achieved at the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne. We confirmed then, as we have done on many previous occasions, that pistol shooting events can, of course, go ahead at the 2012 London Olympics without the need for changes to legislation. Instead, we would use the Home Secretary's powers under Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to authorise competitors and officials to possess competition pistols for the duration of the games and for special warm-up events.
	Those arrangements worked very well for the Manchester Commonwealth Games but, if there are any lessons to be learnt, we are happy to consider how we might fine tune what was done last time. My noble friend Lady Scotland made it clear that we would be discussing with colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements should be made to allow squads to practise in Great Britain in advance of the games and this we are doing.
	I am happy to confirm all of this again today but I have to say that we are not persuaded that we need to change the legislation in the way in which the new clause before us proposes.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am well aware that the noble Earl is far more expert in these matters than I am. I am sure the point that he makes is a very proper one. Although I accept the points made by the noble Earl, I want to explain our position. As I have said, I am happy to confirm our approach, which has been set out before. At this point, we are not persuaded that we need a change to the legislation, as the new clause proposes.
	I entirely accept that there is a debate to be had about the arrangements for the London Olympics but, ultimately, this is something which can be resolved using the Secretary of State's powers under Section 5, which are sufficiently wide and allow for conditions to be attached both generally and to ensure that public safety and peace are not endangered.
	The new clause before us does not address what would happen after the London games. The proposed starting date of 1 January 2010 was clearly selected with just the London Olympics and preparations for them in mind, but gives no indication as to when the special arrangements might end. Furthermore, far from being confined to those with a realistic chance of becoming Olympians, it would be open to any shooters to claim that they were training with this as their long-term aim.
	While I recognise that only a limited relaxation of the handgun ban is being proposed, I would be concerned that this might be seen as a weakening of our gun controls. The ramifications of a total ban were very carefully considered by your Lordships' House, although in a different atmosphere, at the time of the original ban and it was recognised then that it would effectively end competitive pistol target shooting in this country. However, it was also recognised that special arrangements could be made to allow pistol shooting events to go ahead if, as is now the case, the Olympic, Commonwealth or Paralympics Games were to take place in Great Britain. We should continue to pursue that course, in consultation with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the shooting organisations.
	A number of noble Lords have mentioned that these consultations are currently being conducted. There are also new Ministers in post. This is clearly a matter of some delicacy, on which there will need to be careful consultation and consideration. We have had considerable success with our firearms strategy over recent years. There was a reduction in the number of firearms offences in 2004–05 of 5 per cent, and a beneficial decrease of 15 per cent in the use of handguns. However, gun crime must be tackled, and we must all take it seriously. Clearly, the legislation was originally drafted with that in mind; there was a carefully constructed political consensus at the time.
	I pay tribute to those who have had success in the Commonwealth Games. I have the table of winners in the most recent competition, and it is indeed impressive. Those successes have been achieved under the current legislative framework. I hear and recognise what the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said.
	I hope that we can continue the all-party consensus. I have seen a recent press statement from the Conservative Opposition on the issue, which concerns me a little, but it contains a commitment to continuing an all-party consensus wherever possible on the limiting exemption for handguns. I hope that we can pursue the issue in that light. I cannot give a commitment that we will bring back an amendment like the one we have today; that would be quite wrong. All I can say is that we are committed to further consultations to find a way through what is, as all have recognised, a difficult issue.
	However, I am most grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has raised this matter, and to all speakers who have contributed from the Opposition Benches for the constructive framework in which they have done so. Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment this evening, so that those discussions and consultations can continue.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 117A and 117B. We are moving to Part 2 and dangerous weapons. We on these Benches support the new offence of using someone to mind a weapon. There are many cases of which I am personally aware where weapons have been concealed in an attempt to evade the forces of law and order.
	All I am seeking to do with these amendments is to inquire what the mens rea of this offence is to be, which is why we seek to introduce the word "intentionally". I also criticise the words in subsection 2(b):
	"or be likely to involve or to lead to".
	Those are very vague words for a criminal offence punishable either by four years in the case of a knife or 10 years for a firearm. We seek to tighten up the offence by including the words:
	"or is intended by him to be used in the course of the commission of an offence".
	These are probing amendments, and I await the Minister's response.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his explanation of this order. I am even more grateful to the Hansard writers for taking down his words so that I can interpret them in a rather more relaxed fashion in due course. Of course, this order is welcome because it is a prerequisite to the Wireless Telegraphy Bill, which we now have before us. As the Minister has explained, it is the first consolidation Bill for a very long time. One thing that we are all in favour of is consolidation Bills wherever possible. The pity of it is that we do not have more of them.
	However, the procedure involved with this order is a little peculiar. One of the powers in the Wireless Telegraphy Bill concerning the repeals and amendments to the 2003 Act specifically repeals the power to make this order. Of course, the order is timely. It has to be implemented the minute before the Bill becomes an Act, so that, in effect, it is on the statute book and then affects the content of the Bill. What I find difficult to understand is how someone back in 2003 envisaged this necessity arising and wrote it into the 2003 Act very specifically so that we can now specifically repeal it when the new Bill becomes an Act. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that.
	I should like to raise two further minor points. First, the Explanatory Memorandum to the order explains the policy background. It says that,
	"consolidation falls under the general heading of simplification . . . bringing together different regulations into a more manageable form and restating the law more clearly".
	If one looks at Schedule 9 to the Wireless Telegraphy Bill, only two Acts are completely repealed. Most of the others are only quite marginally repealed. In some cases, it is only specific sections that are repealed. While I am prepared to accept that this may simplify the law and make it more straightforward, it occurs to me that it probably has not greatly reduced what I would call the body of the law, which I suspect if one stood it in a vertical heap would still be nearly one foot high.
	My other point is also minor. The Explanatory Note states that,
	"the amendment widens the circumstances in which a licence may be revoked".
	Finally, it states:
	"A regulatory impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as it has no impact on the costs of business".
	It occurs to me that if you widen the circumstances under which a licence might be revoked, there could be a quite dramatic impact on the "costs of business". I wonder whether those statements are factually consistent. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain that.
	Having said all that, this is a welcome order. Even more welcome is the Wireless Telegraphy Bill, which I somewhat wish that I had not bothered to look at because if I had not, I would not have had to raise these questions.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, we welcome the order. However, I would welcome a response from the Minister on why this order has missed the opportunity to address certain technological developments in short-range FM transmitter devices. One of the more commonly-known products to use this technology is the iTrip. The Government and Ofcom continue to bury their heads in the sand over the use of devices that broadcast over only a very limited area. Not only has that failure encouraged the continued illegal use of those devices, the Government must be missing out on considerable tax revenue from a device that a number of other countries, including the United States, have deemed acceptable for use and for regulation. That is all the more disappointing considering that we will have to return to this issue following the European Union's recommendation that member states consider their current legislation. I would welcome the Minister's response to that.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 150. I am somewhat struck that we have few devotees of the Bill in the Chamber at this time of night. The majority of my colleagues on these Benches are in a much better place, celebrating a special event for my noble friend Lady Thatcher, so I wish them well in their absence. I am sure their good wishes are with me, but not their votes. I am aware that on the other side several colleagues of the noble Lord on the Front Bench are not exactly away from the House, but are upstairs watching an important football match. I understand that the Minister has made sure that we will be kept informed of vital developments, for which I am most grateful.
	These probing amendments on Clause 23 have been tabled to ask just how available for use a weapon has to be in order for a person to be guilty of the new offence in this clause. I should make it clear that I support the creation of the new offence of using an accomplice to conceal weapons. We accept that there is evidence that a number of cases are not proceeded with for lack of a weapon, so it is hoped that this provision might assist in the conviction of more criminals. It is certainly always a worry when someone uses a person uses a child to mind weapons for him.
	Subsection (1) of Clause 23 provides that it is an offence for a person to use someone else to hide or carry a dangerous weapon so as to make the weapon available to the first person for an unlawful purpose. Subsection (2) then sets out circumstances in which a weapon is to be regarded as being available to the first person. The Explanatory Notes state that this is a non-exhaustive list, which is without doubt an understatement. However, in the circumstances I do not object to that. It would be impossible to set out an exhaustive list in primary legislation of this type. But what kind of guidelines will be given to the CPS when it seeks determine which cases should be prosecuted, and in what way? Further, what guidelines will be given to the police when they are considering making an arrest? Or will the question be left to be decided on a case-by-case basis in the courts? What work have the Government carried out so far on this matter?
	I put these questions to the Minister in a basic and practical way. For example, what if a person asks someone else to mind a gun for him and the minder, either at the behest of the first person or on his own initiative, breaks down the gun into separate parts so that it cannot be used until it has been reassembled? Is that weapon still considered to be available within the context of the offence in this clause? Again, what if the minder, either on his own initiative or at the behest of the owner of the weapon, hides the parts of the gun in different places, not close to each other but at some distance? Is that weapon still available under the drafting of this subsection? Lastly, what if the owner breaks down the gun into its component parts and asks different people to mind the weapon? Is that weapon still available under the drafting of this subsection?
	What I am trying to do here is to ask probing questions from the standpoint of someone who wants to ensure that this new offence really does bite and that people cannot get around it by using easy and devious means. I beg to move.

The Earl of Shrewsbury: I have given notice that I object to Clause 23 standing part of the Bill. I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee, chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council and honorary president of the Gun Trade Association.
	This is a probing objection proposed on behalf of the British Shooting Sports Council. The council is an umbrella organisation representing the major shooting associations in the United Kingdom. Through direct membership of, or affiliation to, the respective associations, the council represents the interests of some three quarters of a million certificate holders and an even greater number of other people who participate, or are employed in some form or another, in shooting sports.
	Firearms legislation has grown up piecemeal over many years. In many areas it is now so complicated that it creates unnecessary difficulty for those who enforce it and to be almost beyond the comprehension of those—including the council and those it represents—who must comply with that legislation.
	In May 2004, the Home Office commenced a comprehensive review of firearms legislation by publishing a consultation paper. In that paper, the Home Office undertook that,
	"specific proposals will be made in the light of comments received in response to this consultation".
	There have been some 4,000 comprehensive responses to the consultation paper from individuals and organisations. These have not yet been analysed at the Home Office; there has been no feedback to consultees and no further progress in the process laid down by the Cabinet Office.
	In a further consultation paper, Tackling Crime, the Government undertook to consult on various issues relating to the sale and possession of imitation firearms. Part 2 of the Bill has been brought forward but there has been no prior consultation on it. Part 2 should be removed from the Bill so that a consultation process can be properly completed and informed decisions taken on the basis of proper research to identify and target the real problem. Ideally, Part 2 should be considered during the Home Office review of firearms legislation and any changes should form part of a comprehensive and logical review that will produce a body of law which is simpler but no less effective.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his contribution and to the noble Baroness for her questions. The noble Earl did not actually argue against the specifics of the clause; this debate is more a convenient point at which to air his understandable concerns and frustrations at the fruits of the consultation.
	It is true that we received a very large response to the consultation. There were around 4,500 submissions, many of which were very comprehensive. I can confirm that they have all been read and analysed. I can also confirm that we are giving very careful consideration to how to proceed and that we intend to produce a summary of responses.
	The clue to the difficulty, if difficulty there be, is that we received 4,500 submissions. There is a great deal of interest in this, and pulling together a summary and conducting the analysis has been very complex. I make no apology for the fact that we are taking our time over it, although it is regrettable that we have to move on and address some of the lacunae that exist in firearms legislation before we have been able to produce an analysis and summary of the points that were produced by the consultation.
	I take it as axiomatic that we have a duty as a Government to act when there is an apparent problem. It is always better, neater and more convenient to do these things in one space, at one point, but we must recognise that there are current and live issues that need to be dealt with. In particular, the increased use of imitation firearms for the purposes of criminal activity, on which we have statistics, means that we need to place restrictions generally on their availability.
	One can always criticise consultation. It is never perfect, but we have tried to be honest and open in the way in which we have approached this. We have also tried to ensure that there was the maximum opportunity for people to make responses. The noble Baroness asked for a timetable. I cannot give her one across the Dispatch Box but I will talk to our officials and try to get a clearer idea so that we can provide some sort of timetable if at all possible. I will happily write to the noble Baroness and others who are involved in this debate, particularly the noble Earl, to ensure that they are kept informed of how we intend to proceed regarding the outcome of the review.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not going to be quite so short, because while of course we object to the point of principle that the noble Lord has enunciated, it is worth putting on the record why we feel it is right and necessary to introduce the measure that we have.
	Although gun crime is low overall—it counts for something like 0.4 per cent of all recorded crime—it has been rising. In 2001–02, handguns were used in 5,871 crimes, an increase of 46 per cent on the previous year. Handguns were used in 58 per cent of armed crime. There were 97 fatalities and 558 serious injuries resulting from crimes involving firearms. Some of this, as we all readily acknowledge, is associated with gang culture, which itself is much linked to the illegal drug trade. The Government are determined to tackle this serious problem. We want to deter criminals from using firearms and ensure that they receive appropriately tough sentences on conviction.
	That is worth saying, because it is important that people understand that we have made progress. In 2004–05, as I explained earlier, there was a 5 per cent decrease in the number of crimes in which firearms were used. Handgun offences fell by 15 per cent and the number of firearm crimes resulting in serious or fatal injury fell by 5 per cent. The most recent statistics, for the year ending December 2005, show that firearm offences excluding air weapons were down 3 per cent and that fatal injuries, thankfully, were down 30 per cent.
	We contend that our strategy on tackling gun crime is working and we feel that the minimum sentence has played a part in that. But there is more to do. We cannot rest on our laurels. Gun crime is still a serious problem and we need to maintain our efforts to combat it. If we were to accept the noble Lord's amendment at this point, it would be sending exactly the wrong message. We need to maintain our commitment and demonstrate to those who seek to conduct their lives in a world of criminality that we are serious about putting them out of circulation and taking appropriate measures to tackle something that, while it is a diminishing problem for the moment, is a problem that we need to be vigilant in tackling.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The word "consultation" drives fear into my heart when I consider the outcome of the consultation on Part 2 of the Bill and the lack of constructive response in that regard. The Minister is always very constructive in the way that he responds to amendments, and I appreciate the way in which he has carefully set out what the Government will be doing. The difficulty is that what he has tried to set out in a very straightforward way contrasts dramatically—how can I put this in parliamentary language?—with the clear commitments given by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister should know very well that he has absolutely no hope in this world of carrying out those commitments because of our commitments to the Human Rights Act and the ECHR, which this Government espoused. I find that hypocrisy—it is nothing less than hypocrisy—from another Minister, as against the honesty of this Minister in setting out what the Home Office hopes it will be able to do, very difficult to take.
	The Minister was right: when we had the Statement, I made it clear that if appropriate legislation came forward, I would accept it within the context of proper consideration and examination. At the time that I made that commitment, which was made in all honesty, as is always the case, I was disappointed but not too surprised to hear one of the Minister's noble friends—I will name him, although he is not in his place at the moment—the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, express disbelief that I gave that commitment and that I was telling the truth. He not only stated it but looked astonished at his colleagues and obviously thought that I would do no such thing. I keep to my word and, if the Government ever bring forward their own legislation, I shall be astonished that they do but I shall consider it in a proper way.
	I am also aware that we have been admonished by another of the Minister's noble friends, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who has said that if we intend to vote on something, we should not put it off just because there is no one about. As I mentioned earlier, I am aware that all my colleagues, bar some wonderful supporters here—quality not quantity—are at another place having a very well earned break, celebrating at a special dinner with my noble friend Lady Thatcher. I am aware that it is an understatement to say that we are thin on the ground but I feel that it is time for the Government to put up or shut up. They have said that they are going to do what my amendment does. Can they be believed? Do they want to vote for what their Prime Minister has said? My amendment would fulfil the Prime Minister's commitment, so I wish to test the opinion of the House. Should the Prime Minister be believed or not?